I don't get it. The hypocrites were bothering the Prophet (PBUH) but once they had to pay for it, they didn't want to pay so they stopped bothering him. Ali (RA) did pay if we accept the narration. Where is the implication that he would be a hypocrite (God forbid)?

Exactly. Furthermore, `Afaana himself says, on pages 98-99, that the story about Ali is fabricated, so why does he even use it for evidence in the first place?

In his book, منهج القرآن في تطوير المجتمع, Dr. Muhammad Al-Bahiyy follows a valid approach for refuting abrogation claims: that verses which appear to have different rulings about the same issue are not in conflict, but rather are gradual legislations. He argues, rightly, that changing a society from tribalism and chaos to law and order cannot be done in one sweeping move; it has to be gradual and has to build on robust foundations built step-by-step.

He follows that by assuming something which is not actually certain, and that is the order of revelation of Chapters. He doesn't attempt to substantiate that order.

Even if we concede that order, Al-Bahiyy actually makes a strange statement as he builds up his argument. He says, on page 12, that the first mandate for prayer was in this verse, which Al-Bahiyy says is a Medinite verse which has been placed in the Meccan Chapter 11 (سورة هود):

The reason his statement is strange is that we know, from many hadeeths, that the prayer was mandated during the Ascension Journey and there's no controversy that it was during the Meccan era.

He doubles up on the strange statement by saying, on page 13, that the next stage in legislating the prayer mandate happened by another Medinite verse placed in the Meccan Chapter 20 (سورة طه)!

He even confirms that the verse is referring to "an early period of the Prophet's mission when Muslims were few and weak." Well, that was in Mecca!

Then he triples up! He says that Chapter 20 is number 45 in the revelation order, while Chapter 11 is number 52 in revelation order. Doesn't that mean that the second verse (20:132) -and second step in the legislation- was before the first verse (11:114) and first step? And if the order of the two Medinite verses is correctly chronological, then why does he bother telling us about the order of revelation of the Chapters in the first place?

I don't understand how he couldn't notice these discrepancies. Am I missing something here?

And why would he even bother with that? He could've simply shown the verses, as they develop the legislation step-by-step, until it is complete. He would've made his point that way.

In his book, أحكام النسخ في الشريعة الإسلامية, Dr. Muhammad Wafa argues, rightly, against equating abrogation with al-badaa' (realizing a better idea). But in doing so, uses an argument that is based on facts not in evidence!

After favoring one of the definitions of abrogation, Wafa, on page 35, attacks those who equate abrogation with al-badaa' by saying that they forgot, or pretended to forget, that when God abrogated some of His rulings with other, He knew that the abrogated ruling was contingent on a benefit that was present at its time and was going to end, and that the abrogating ruling will also be predicated on another benefit at its time.

He assumed that God abrogated His rulings, then built on that assumption. But Wafa did not prove that God abrogated any of His rulings!

As I said in several other posts, God has not abrogated any of His rulings. People did. God revealed newer scriptures in order to abrogate man-altered scriptures, thus bringing back His rulings. The Quran was the last scripture because God vowed to protect it from alteration Himself.

And if someone asks why didn't God protect the first scripture, the answer, imho, is because He wanted to show us that a scripture left unprotected by Him will eventually be altered by people.

Al-Bahiyy actually makes a strange statement as he builds up his argument. He says, on page 12, that the first mandate for prayer was in this verse, which Al-Bahiyy says is a Medinite verse which has been placed in the Meccan Chapter 11 (سورة هود): (verse 11:114).

The reason his statement is strange is that we know, from many hadeeths, that the prayer was mandated during the Ascension Journey and there's no controversy that it was during the Meccan era.

He doubles up on the strange statement by saying, on page 13, that the next stage in legislating the prayer mandate happened by another Medinite verse placed in the Meccan Chapter 20 (سورة طه)! (verse 20:132).

He even confirms that the verse is referring to "an early period of the Prophet's mission when Muslims were few and weak." Well, that was in Mecca!

Then he triples up! He says that Chapter 20 is number 45 in the revelation order, while Chapter 11 is number 52 in revelation order. Doesn't that mean that the second verse (20:132) -and second step in the legislation- was before the first verse (11:114) and first step? And if the order of the two Medinite verses is correctly chronological, then why does he bother telling us about the order of revelation of the Chapters in the first place?

I don't understand how he couldn't notice these discrepancies. Am I missing something here?

And why would he even bother with that? He could've simply shown the verses, as they develop the legislation step-by-step, until it is complete. He would've made his point that way.

Professor Ali Hasaballah, in his book أصول التشريع الإسلامي, pages 196-198, discusses what the scholars of foundations opined in regards to whether an unlimited ruling should be taken by a later ruling which limits it. When the subject and the ruling are the same, scholars are not in agreement that the unlimited ruling should be according to the limited version of it. Hanafis opined for that in order to avoid conflict. Shaafi`is opined for doing so only by evidence.

Hasaballah gives an example of that. In one event, the Prophet (PBUH) specified two months fast as an expiation for breaking a Ramadan fast. In another event, he specified fasting two consecutive months as expiation for mating during a Ramadan fast. So, which is it, two months not necessarily consecutive, or two consecutive months?

Abu-Haneefa chose two consecutive months, in order to eliminate conflict. Ash-Shaafi`i agreed, but only because he interpreted the first event as mating as well. But for breaking a fast in other ways, he said the two months needn't be consecutive. Hasaballah gave another event where the Hanafi scholars broke their rule and went with the unlimited ruling.

Hasaballah then explains why this issue of taking the limited ruling is valid. It's because "the unlimited ruling is silent about the limited ruling; it doesn't state it and neither does it negate it. Therefore, taking the limited ruling is a cancellation of part of the unlimited ruling, but the other way around is a cancellation of the entire limited ruling. And no doubt a reconciliation between two ruling is preferred to cancellation of one of them."

Hasaballah, however, doesn't see the same principle applying to abrogation! He sees a limiting ruling which follows an unlimited ruling which went into effect for a while, he sees that as partial abrogation.

Muhammad Hamza, in his book دراسات الأحكام والنسخ في القرآن الكريم, pages 97-99, copies what Ar-Raazi wrote as his proof that abrogation did occur, under the title "The arguments of the majority". Ar-Raazi offers for evidence the cases of 2:234/240, 58:13/58:12, 8:66/8:65 and 2:144/2:115.

Obviously, Hamza and Ar-Raazi are not only ignoring the burden of proof set by the majority they speak of, but actually use the opposite of it! The burden of proof set by the majority of scholars is that if there is any explanation that reconciles what appears to be a contradiction between two verses, such explanation must be taken in preference to claiming abrogation. Hamza and Ar-Raazi both are trying to say that if there is an apparent conflict between two verses then that proves one abrogates the other.

Hamza's book is his Master's thesis. I wonder why his thesis advisor didn't point out to him this serious flaw with his thesis.

Interestingly, Ar-Raazi seems to think that the abrogated verse in the 2:144/2:115 claim is 2:140, not 2:115!

Translation:So, these are nine verses, none but, and claiming abrogation in any other verse is incorrect, apparently, and God knows best.

Thus, Hamza appointed himself an arbiter of Suyooti's list which has been the consensus for Centuries. Does Hamza believe in consensus or not? If he doesn't, then why did he use their arguments. If he does, then why is he contradicting them?

Can Hamza, or his thesis adviser, answer this simple question: What's a judge supposed to do when he has to rule on an issue in which Suyooti said is an abrogation and Hamza says it's not?

Hamza actually follows his conclusion with a sharp criticism of the Salaf who made hundreds of abrogation claims. He calls their reasoning "based on obvious error and failing confusion, much of what they said isn't worth mentioning." He's right about that and the reasons he gives apply to his list as well, but he's not aware of it. For example,

He says that a specificity, such as an exception or term is not an abrogation. Yet, he approves 2:185/2:184 which clearly specifies an exemption. And he approves 24:32/24:3 where a generality is claimed to abrogate a specificity!

He says that contingent ruling is not abrogated when the contingency goes away. Yet, he approves 8:66/8:65 which clearly specifies two contingencies: steadfastness and strength.

He says that a limitation is not an abrogation. Yet, he approves 73:20/73:1-4 which clearly address the Prophet (PBUH) only.

He says that explanation and elaboration are not abrogation. Yet, he approves 4:11-12/2:180 which clearly honors bequests. He also approves 33:50/33:52 despite the obvious elaboration (and chronology reversal!) that the Prophet (PBUH) may not marry again after he made his decision of marriage based on the 33:50.

Finally, the big one! Hamza says that a reason for making erroneous abrogation claims is "Perceiving a conflict between two texts when in fact there is no conflict between them". I wish he listened to his own advice. I wish his Master's thesis advisor reminded him of it.

Finally, the big one! Hamza says that a reason for making erroneous abrogation claims is "Perceiving a conflict between two texts when in fact there is no conflict between them". I wish he listened to his own advice. I wish his Master's thesis advisor reminded him of it.

Dr. M. Ibrahim Faaris, in his book introduction صفوة الراسخ في المنسوخ والناسخ, page 38, mentions a very interesting statistic, presented by Dr. Abdul-Mun`im An-Nimr, in his book علوم القرآن الكريم, of the breakdown of the number of verses claimed abrogated but are really not:75 statements of fact,28 threats,63 falsely called abrogated by the sword verse,48 elaborated, not abrogated,63 contain no contradictions,6 called abrogated by consensus of scholars but the case for abrogating them is incorrect.Total: 283.

Dr. Faaris does not mention those 6 abrogation claims that Dr. An-Nimr rejected despite majority approval. I have a feeling that they are the only 6 verses claimed abrogated by Dr. Mustafa Zayd, but I need to check out Dr. An-Nimr's book to confirm it.

Your feeling is correct. He only kept 4:15-16 but rejected the rest of Zeid's cases, citing opinions of Hasaballah.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum